He suggested the possibility of sending troops to Mexico to fight drug cartels.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Saturday that he would consider sending U.S. troops into Mexico to combat drug-related violence and stop it from spilling into the southern United States.

“It may require our military in Mexico,” Perry said in answer to a question about the growing threat of drug violence along the southern border. Perry offered no details, and a spokesman, Robert Black, said afterward that sending troops to Mexico would be merely one way of putting an end to the exploding cartel-related violence in the region.

[…]

Perry was in New Hampshire for a two-day campaign tour, his fourth since declaring his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

Pressed to explain Perry’s remarks, Black, the spokesman, offered this: “Never say never. Mexico has a problem. They have a significant problem with drug cartels at war with each other. And that is a significant problem for the United States.”

This is a terrible suggestion for a host of reasons.

First, such a move would be a serious escalation of the current policy (a policy that isn’t working as it is). Not only that, the suggestion suggests a naive belief that all that is needed to fix the drug problem is finding the right level of force. If one thing should be clear from the available data: force alone is not going to solve this problem. The war on drugs is unwinnable and anyone who suggests that all we need is simply more money, more force, or some combination thereof, is simply revealing their lack of understanding and/or seriousness on this topic.

Second, such a move would just lead to an escalation of violence, not a diminution thereof. The Mexican cartels are in a position to wage an insurgent style fight against US troops. Further, they are mixed in with the civilian population. What, exactly, does Perry think regular troops would be doing in Mexico?

Third, there is also the historical tone deafness to the suggestion, given that US troops in Mexico has a rather significant negative connotation to Mexicans. While those of us en the north have forgotten about the Mexican-American War, not to mention numerous incursions by US troops into Mexican territory in the mid-to-late 1800s and the early 1900s, it remains a point of significance to Mexicans.

Fourth, this is an egregious example of American hubris: the belief that another country ought to welcome the deployment of US troops within their territory because, after all, we just want to help. But, of course, this is something that Americans would never even contemplate (i.e., having foreign troops acting within our territory).

Fifth, given the ongoing military actions in which the US government is currently engaged, do we really need another one?

In summary: do we really want to transform the drug war into an actual hot one with US combat* troops deployed to a foreign country?

—

*There are, of course, US troops operating in advisory, training, and other non-combat capacities in Colombia and Mexico (as well as elsewhere).

About Steven L. Taylor

Steven L. Taylor is Professor of Political Science and Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Troy University. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on Twitter

I’d suggest a 6th reason why this policy is a bad idea: The Mexican government is fighting what is for all intents and purposes an insurgency. The last ten years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan should be an indication to anyone with a pulse our military is largely ineffective against guerillas, despite spending nearly a thousand times their resources.

On one side of the border billions of dollars waiting to be spent on drugs. On the other side of the border drugs. And the only possible solution is to invade and take down the drug sellers. Right. It’s nice how none of it is our fault.

There’s also the reality that right now 90% of the drug violence has stayed on the Mexican side of the border because the cartels don’t want the US government to get involved. If we start sending our troops into Mexico, the cartles are likely going to respond by sending their “troops” into the US.

Sixth. Why assume that the drug cartels wouldn’t take the war north of the US/Mexican border into say Dallas/Ft. Worth?
Seventh What happens after the inevitable “drone strike accidentally kills 23 people at a wedding party” event.
Eight. What will prevent this from becoming a regional conflict involving Guatemala, Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica even Panama?

What I would be most concerned about, is if a prolonged incursion led to the creation of a similar culture of bribery as exists among the Mexican authorities. I’m not naive enough to think there isn’t some bribery, but most of American bribery is of the “donate for election” style, and as such the rank and file are somewhat honest.

Rule of law depends on the lower levels being honest, and in this economy it’s the lower levels who are the most in need of money.

But let’s face it, the real reason Perry is saying this has nothing to do with him actually thinking it’s a good idea. The conservative base is really really unhappy with Perry’s compassion towards immigrants. Solution? Propose to invade Mexico! Tomorrow everyone will be talking about how Perry is just too hardcore on his hatred of Mexicans, hopefully changing the topic from Perry actually being a moderate on immigration. Unfortunately a republican candidate can weather the fallout from saying we should invade a neighbor much easier than he can say that we should treat immigrants who were brought here as children should have the same chances to get an education as anyone else who was born here.

@James Joyner: That the Republican front runner has, once again, proven to be a complete loon must be viewed as an indictment on the quality of this Republican party. You guys are batsh*t insane. Completely, totally, bug-eyed, gone. The statesmen in the ranks can’t get so much as a shout-out or a high-five from your base. They would kick Reagan to the curb. You save your ire for DFHers protesting on Wall Street while the true danger gathers on your right…

Well…I just heard about Rick Perry’s hunting lodge he so lovingly once called “[N-word]head.” He was well into his governorship before he decided that perhaps changing the name would be in his best interests. I believe that smear was one they were holding back until they felt they really needed to blow his candidacy out of the water.

35 year war without end. Just say no more to the BS and legalize it
Then the states can be the dealers, just like they became the
sellers of Alcohol, Tobacco and as well as bookies with Lotteries

It built South Florida from a sleepy tourist destination to world class.

War is big business, so is the drug biz from the police to the courts to the prisons
its an economy we cannot let go of. I hope you all had your fun with Merry Perry
and he is not even on punch yet…. Wonder what he is smoking too?

Perry’s comments also ignores the harsh reality that local police and the military are directly and indirectly involved in this drug war in Mexico. This just isn’t a cartel issue. The cartels have been extremely successful in infiltrating the local, state, and national police and military. What else explains the Zetas who are former Mexican Army Special Forces who were in fact trained by the US? The corrupt Mexican police and military have a vested interest in keeping the Mexican drug war alive.

This would indirectly lead to the US military directly taking on the Mexican police force and Mexican military.

@Bryan: The payroll for corrupted mexican forces are in dollars, all of the money came from american junkies hooked on drugs, the guns came from US, why dont you star your war in US rather than south? which is the fear to end the causes not the effects?